What you should call a distribution consisting of GNU utilities and the Linux kernel, according to RMS. RMS feels you should give some credit to all the people who've worked hard to create the GNU utilities.
Is it too much to ask that you type four more characters?

GNU/Linux is a free system--not just a collection of useful programs--because the GNU Project set out to make it one. RMS found, wrote, or found people to write everything required. FSF wrote essential components, such as the assembler and linker (you have no system without them). In the 90s the FSF had put together the whole system aside from the kernel, and they are still working on a kernel, the GNU Hurd, which runs on top of Mach.

See BSD/Linux.

More than a question of who wrote what or who owns the system or who deserves credit for the system, IMHO the point of calling it GNU/Linux instead of just Linux is that a lot of users have never realized about the important role that the FSF and the GNU project have played in the free software movement.

By saying GNU in the name of the system people will want to know what is GNU and then will find out about the GNU philosophy, which is very important to stop having them thinking about free beer and start having them think in freedom of speech.

I really don't see why it would be called GNU/Linux. It's a good abbreviation to just call it "Linux". No one would argue that the kernel isn't the most important part of the system. Linux is the kernel, where the GNU parts are less important (while still integral to the system). Where does it end? There are numerous critical tools in a Linux system that are from the BSD crowd, should it be called BSD/GNU/Linux? I can see it now: "Is it too much to ask that you type eight more characters?" Or maybe we should just go all the way and name every group that made any part of any particular distro. After all, it's all included in the "Linux CD". Where does it end?

The Linux kernel is the most basic part of the system. It is the lowest common denominator and as such, it makes sense to call it "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux".

"The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. (GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix"; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".) Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as "Linux", they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems." -- http://www.gnu.org

GNU/Linux is the more accurate name for GNU software running on top of the UNIX-like Linux kernel, by Linus Torvalds. The GNU project was founded on the basis that an operating system could be free software, and that includes the kernel. However, the GNU organization by 1990 -- had yet to provide such a kernel, that would be the basis of their programs. Although they had one in progress, the Hurd which runs on top of mach, it was not nearly finished. In fact it's not even finished today as of this writeup. (I think OS X runs on top of mach). Thats where the Linux kernel enters. The Linux kernel was a private undertaking of Linus Torvalds of making a free UNIX-like kernel. Since the GNU programs had yet to have a kernel, they would be better off porting their programs to match Linux than waiting for the Hurd kernel to complete developement.

Instead of waiting for the GNU/Hurd system to complete its developement, you could now use the Linux kernel with GNU software. And since it's not on the Hurd kernel, but on the Linux kernel -- its name is: GNU/Linux.

If you are running "Linux", because of this, you would be better off saying that you are running "GNU" on "Linux" or "GNU/Linux". Unless you are a kernel monkey that is.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.